Console shortages had always been a common tactic used by game companies to attempt to increase demand for the console. This is evident in the launch of the SNES in Japan and in the US in 1990/1991. The fact that the shortage for the PS2 was bigger than that of SNES has to be attributed to the growth of the videogame market. The reason why the PS2 looks as if it had been eagerly anticipated and as if a major shortage had slowed the console's progress at launch was because of Sony's marketing strategy and the rush to buy a console at launch due to the shortage. This mad rush to buy the console at the end of 2000 makes it look as if the console was eagerly anticipated, but a shortage definitely makes the console look more popular to future buyers than a possibility for the console not to sell all its copies at launch. The fact was that PS2 sales only increased dramatically by the beginning of 2002, and even in 2001 hardcore fans and the more serious gamers were the only ones who really bought Sony's console. The Dreamcast may have sold more copies at the end of 2000 due to the shortage of PS2 consoles but this by no means extended the life expectancy of that console: Sega would still have expected to sell more copies of the Dreamcast at christmas time of 2000 than at any other time of the year, so it still would not have pulled the plug out of its console until early 2001. Sales picked up for the PS2 in 2001 and 2002 not because it was the most anticipated console to hit the shelves at the time but because it was the logical choice for PS1 owners and because of the release of anticipated sequels for popular PS1 games like Metal Gear Solid 2 and Final Fantasy 10 (both released in 2002). It was also because Dreamcast quit in March 2001 and neither Microsoft nor Nintendo had released its respective consoles yet, so the PS2 was the only choice for those looking for next-generation consoles in 2001. In 2002 it was games like Grand Theft Auto 3 which increased its sales dramatically. Sega also dropped the price of its Dreamcasts in late 2000 as a last ditch effort to sell more consoles before it pulled the plug out of the hardware market, and it would have done so whether or not there was a shortage for the PS2. Sega discontinued the Dreamcast in March 2001 knowing that the major hits for the PS2 would hit shelves in that year, like Grand Theft Auto 3 and Gran Turismo 3. It knew it was overmatched by Sony's marketing prowess and its domination over third-party developers, so it pulled the plug early rather than to wait and experience a steady decline in sales. Moreover, while the EA did put out some games for the Nintendo 64 they were by no means major titles for that console as they had been on the PS1. Rare, LucasArts and the developer which made 1080 Snowboarding were the ones which released all the critically acclaimed third-party titles for the Nintendo 64, and EA never managed to achieve quite the same success. So the Nintendo 64 would have done fine without EA.

Don't mean to be a jerk here aa, but paragraph breaks are not only your friend, they're essential on a forum like this. Please please please start using them when you decide to write really long posts like this. If you can take the time to write a wall of text, you can take the time to format it properly.

[QUOTE=aa] The reason why the PS2 looks as if it had been eagerly anticipated and as if a major shortage had slowed the console's progress at launch was because of Sony's marketing strategy and the rush to buy a console at launch due to the shortage. This mad rush to buy the console at the end of 2000 makes it look as if the console was eagerly anticipated, but a shortage definitely makes the console look more popular to future buyers than a possibility for the console not to sell all its copies at launch. [/QUOTE]If you knew anything about gaming, you'd know that Sega also experienced a serious shortage of Dreamcasts at launch, too!

And the PS2 was eagerly anticipated by the entire video game world (not just the so-called hardcore gamers) because the PS1 was a top selling console. It wasn't only due to the shortage at launch, which is what it sounds like you're trying to say!

The shortage of Dreamcasts at launch was a marketing strategy implemented by Sega at the end of 1999, but this wasnt as serious a shortage as the PS2 experienced at the end of 2000. This goes back to my point: The Dreamcast was released too early when people were still buying games for the Playstation and Nintendo 64, and thus at the end of 2000 more people were willing to buy a next-generation console than at the end of 1999. This shows why the PS2 experienced a more serious shortage at launch than the Dreamcast had (that, and Sony's brilliant marketing campaign). Console shortages at launch are nothing new and in 1999/2000 it was a common strategy used by videogame companies to attract more consumers the following year. The PS2 was eagerly anticipated at launch, but Sony's marketing campaign and the serious console shortages made it look as if it was more anticipated than it really had been at the time. Moreover, if the PS2 really had been so eagerly anticipated at launch then why did Sony experience a moderate increase in sales in 2001 and a dramatic increase in sales in 2002? Games like Ico were ignored and sales for Devil May Cry had initially been mediocre. Also, why did Square release Final Fantasy 10 in 2002 and Konami released its Metal Gear Solid 2 in 2002, and why did Namco wait until 2002 to release the highly anticipated Tekken 4? The PS1 was enjoying very good sales in 2000 but the above mentioned companies did not release any noteworthy titles for that system in 2001. They could have released these highly anticipated games for the PS2 in 2001 but they didnt because of the fact that it was harder to develop games for the PS2 than for the PS1 and because they thought that they would earn more profits if they were released in 2002. It turned out that they were right. The PS2 was obviously more eagerly anticipated than the PS1 was, or the Nintendo 64 was when it was released, because it was Sony's second big console and because Sony had won the console wars in the PS1/Nintendo 64 era. This is not a surprising fact, but what is surprising is that Sony sold less PS2s in 2001 than it should have. If the entire video game world had anticipated the release of PS2 in 2000 then the console should have been an instant hit. It was, to some extent, but not all gamers in the "video game world" bought the console in 2001. About 50% did, or less, while the other half was merely considering the purchase of the PS2.

Don't mean to be a jerk here aa, but paragraph breaks are not only your friend, they're essential on a forum like this. Please please please start using them when you decide to write really long posts like this. If you can take the time to write a wall of text, you can take the time to format it properly.

Messages that are not formatted for readability are just going to be deleted aa/stalin/et. al. Please don't ignore this request. It's just a common courtesy to other forum users to make what you write readable.

I understand that this is a sensitive topic to discuss among gamers, but couldn't anyone at least admit that my argument was plausible? Of all those who had opposed my reasoning, none had really been able to challenge my argument and the evidence I used to back up my argument.

All I got for my pain and trouble was the common resorting to the traditional view that Sony killed the Dreamcast through the superior hardware capabilities of the PS2: its DVD player and backwards compatibility with PS1 games.

Noone even had enough courage to admit that Sony won through its marketing campaign as much as it won through the hardware of its PS2. So many people look cynically at Sega but almost seem to worship the abilities of the PS2!

I admit that I do not have the "hard" evidence to back up my argument but only those that I have been able to formulate through my logic. However, doesn't it at least seem to be short-sighted to worship one particular view and close off your eyes and ears to anything that might even slightly challenge that reasoning?

Is it not Sony who manipulates the facts of videogame history through having dominated the era between 2000 and 2008? Does it not strike you that the reasoning in which so many people are clinging to so stubbornly in readily attributing the failure of the Dreamcast have a blatant Sony bias attached to it?

And besides, not all of my reasoning was opinion without regard to facts. It was true that the PS2 sold monumentally in 2002 compared to its sales in 2001, and that not all gamers embraced the PS2 when it arrived in 2001 (what I mean by embraced is to have purchased the PS2).

It is also true that Ico was a colossally overlooked game when it was released in 2001. And it is definitely true that Sega did not nearly enjoy the same amount of third-party support for the Dreamcast than Sony did for the PS2.

And isn't it true that a large number of gamers in 1999 played and bought games for the PS1 and Nintendo 64 rather than purchasing the Dreamcast? (supporting my argument that the Dreamcast was released too early)

So then, how is my reasoning flawed when backed up by all these obvious facts except for the fact that gamers today take for granted the view that supports Sony and their PS2 console?